CPAC Speaker Condemns CPAC For Allowing GOProud, Booed Off Stage

At the 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) today, there was a segment to recognize student conservative activists. When Ryan Sobra of the California Young Americans for Freedom organization went up to speak, instead of giving the speech he was scheduled to give, he decided to publicly denounce CPAC for allowing the gay conservative group GOProud to attend.

"Just to change the subject for just a second, I'd like to condemn CPAC for bringing GOPride (sic) to this event," he said. The audience then erupted into a loud boo. Watch the video of the entire exchange below:

Comments

Most of us who will not tolerate the corruption of the conservative GOP by the flaunting of inappropriate sexual behavior decided not to come to CPAC in the first place.The only reason for the "Proud" Group to show up as a "PAC" is to tell the rest of us that they have sexual relations with people of the same sex. I don't want to know.

That is bullcrap, they were not there to dress up in extravagent clothing or have some pride-fest, they were there to show that gays are welcome in the conservative movement, and that a government that bans marriage between two loving people no matter the gender is not small government values at all, but rather represents an authoritarian big government.

Permalink Submitted by Beverly B. Nuck... on February 20, 2010 at 10:25 AM

I don't believe I want to know in public - keep that private, please.Glad I wasn't there: I don't wish to cooperate with their attempt to act as though it's normal to identify oneself by sexual impropriety or to act as though there is such a thing as "marriage" between people of the same sex.

The platform doesn't define conservatism. It has been held hostage by a tiny radical element hell-bent on turning the GOP's big tent into either a pup tent or some kind of "revival" tent. That applies as much to the horrendous Texas GOP platform (available as PDF from the state party site) as the national one. These documents don't reflect the broadest views within the party but contain objectionable statements that alienate not only independent voters but also other Republicans.

Under your definition, Reagan wasn't conservative: he helped raise money for Log Cabin Republicans and actively campaigned against the Briggs Initiative in California a couple years before the 1980 primaries (even Briggs later had a change of heart about his proposal, which lost in big part to Reagan's public opposition; it would've targeted gay and lesbian teachers in public schools). Under your definition, Barry Goldwater also wasn't conservative: he opposed the ban on gays in the military, thought they should be allowed to marry, etc.

Moreover, Goldwater came to despise the Religious Right because they weren't conservatives -- he viewed them as an insidious threat to real conservatism because their agenda wasn't based on expanding freedom but rather was oriented at authoritarianism of a theocratic sort. He joked with Bob Dole in 1996 that all of a sudden they were "liberals in the GOP" -- even though they're not the ones who'd changed; what had changed was that the GOP had a surge of southern white evangelical activists who suddenly decided everyone else was a "RINO."

--''The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have
the right to live life as they please, as long as they don't hurt anyone else
in the process.''

In the same article, Goldwater warned that ''the radical right has nearly
ruined our party.''

''Its members do not care about the Constitution and they are the one
making all the noise,'' he said.

There's much more I could add to this to demonstrate that your view of conservatism isn't shared by many, but hopefully you get the point from two of the GOP's most influential -- and most conservative -- leaders of the past half century. What's being passed off as "conservatism" today from certain factions isn't conservative at all. I don't know who's been flaunting what at you, but I'd be more than happy to flaunt more truth your way -- and I'm sure you know the truth will set you free.

CPAC is independent of the GOP so it doesn't matter what "the platform" says. Please tell us what representatives from GOProud said or did which was of a sexual nature and why they should have to play by different rules from any other specific interest organization represented at CPAC?

Permalink Submitted by Beverly B. Nuck... on February 20, 2010 at 8:36 PM

The only reason to self-identify as "GOProud" is be to tell us their sexual proclivities. Show me another "special" interest that can *only* *self-identify* - or are you saying that we can just look at people and tell who's homosexual and who's not? "Please tell us what representatives" of other "special interests" choose as their "special" characteristic something that they claim should be none of our business because it's done in the privacy of their own bedrooms? GOP Hookers? GOP Sex Addicts? GOP Fetishists? The Sex Addicts are already over with the Dems, where they belong.

Identity groups don't just include people of certain races. I consider the Christian Coalition and all the other religious-based identity groups to be of the same kind as groups like Log Cabin, GOProud, etc. They also fit your own "definition": I don't know who's a Christian or "values voter" just by looking. I wouldn't deny any of them a place in the big tent even though I disagree with them on a few issues. It's none of my business what they believe in their own homes unless they try to use the force of government to make me believe it or act upon it in some manner.

In an era in which presidential candidates are winning with popular vote totals nearly even, and with state vote totals in some cases just as tight and throwing the Electoral College either way, I think it's foolish to try to make the party smaller by limiting activism. The same applies to Congressional races in such a polarized climate with a fickle electorate. Every vote counts, and the GOP should want to win as many of them as possible.

I agree with Reagan on this. Someone who's with you 80% or more of the time is worthy of support. I realize some people think the GOP is supposed to be run like a church with all kinds of purity and litmus tests on one or two issues. Why should it be any different for those who identify with the gay community (which isn't about sexual activity as much it is about orientation) as those who identify with the Christian community? We don't tell the Religious Right people to keep it quiet about their religious views, to leave it in their churches (even though I believe toning down the bigotry and "social warfare" rhetoric would only boost the GOP's chances in more races).

We're a political party, not an outgrowth of southern evangelicalism. It's time for the party, and its platform, to reflect that.

I recall that during the GOP convention in NYC in 2004, there was a mass migration of hookers from Washington, DC and Las Vegas into New York. I remember laughing, because it never occured to me that there was a lack of supply in NYC...

There are laws that discriminate against gay people. Of <ul>course</ul> they have formed political interest groups around their sexuality. You and I don't have to lobby for our rights as heterosexuals - usually: are we going to condemn people who are against the "marriage penalty" in the tax laws as flouting their sexuality, as well?